James Rosenquist

While working on some homework today I learn a little bit more about the post-modernist movement, though not enough to make me enjoy it in the least. I have always had a strong aversion to it and that hasn't changed, but I was surprised to find one painting in the bunch that I seemed to really enjoy. It is "Bedsprings" by James Rosenquist. I was flipping through his work, mostly unimpressed until this image caught my eye. There is just something about it I find so delicate and captivating. In his entire body of work I didn't find a single piece that captured me as much as this one. Perhaps it was the way he so precisely cropped her face, focusing solely on the eye, cheek, and nose. Unlike his other work this women is accurately and precisely rendered, and with some softness to boot. Compared to say the image of JFK in "President Elect"she is nearly a classical portrait.This woman has depth and life, and suggesting any sort of perspective or realism was quite rare for him.
Then suspending it by twine away from the stretching board. That, at first, gave me a sense of creepiness (a childish word, I'm aware). I felt like he was dissecting her - not literally, of course - but trying to break her apart, separating her from her various parts. Breaking her down by her flaws and perfections. But these warm and sensuous colors suggest something endearing, not calculating. The piece is both baffling and calming to me.

James Rosenquist, unlike most pop artists of the time, had a much more varied color palette and far more dramatic compositions. Most had neutral backgrounds with loosely rendered object or subjects, making them appear flat. But here Rosenquist eliminated the background and focus on one single aspect of beauty, rendering it to perfection. He won't make me like the modern or post-modernist movement, but he will make he appreciate him as an individual artist just a little bit more.

Dr. Frankenstein; Male Chauvinist?

I read Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley in high school. But I didn't truly appreciate it until my freshmen year of college. I remember reading it in my Humanities class and then having to write a paper analyzing the possible meanings of the story. My professor, as nice as she was, had some very obvious radical feminist views. I used this to my advantage, and this yielded some surprising revelations on my part.
The basic plot synopsis, well...if you haven't read it or aren't even aware of the basic plot then I am quite impressed. I am impressed that you managed to find a rock to live under for so very long that turned out to be extremely effective.

Anyhow, a man named Victor Frankenstein decides to use all his knowledge of science to create a living human from the bones and flesh from the deceased. He wanted this man to be "eight feet in height and proportionally large." Even a normal human of this size would be monster-like. His work was successful, though not in the way he expected.
So let us break this down the way I did in my paper. Victor, who was not a doctor but a student of medicine, wanted to create man. What are his motivations? Does he want to create man in order to eradicate the strain of childbirth on women? Or does he desire to create man in order to eradicate women in general? Note that he is not creating a person for companionship, as we are most used to hearing about men desiring to create a person or robot - with female parts - for their special friend (my brother-in-law comes to mind).
Most would choose to think the former as he did marry and did love women, so he didn't want to eradicate them. And I am not even going to bother entering into the homosexual overtones territory. He was very close friends with a man named Clerval. He loved him very much, in fact. But this was not uncommon then and it certainly isn't uncommon now. She had Percy Shelley and Lord Byron as the perfect models. You know what I mean, bro?
So were his goals admirable? Was he trying to take the burden of continuing human life off the shoulders of his beloved and womankind across the globe? All signs point to yes. The chances of dying during childbirth were incredibly high up until the advancement of modern medicine. But don't start praising his desire to help mankind just yet. "A new species would bless me as it's creator and source, many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me." Now it is a little more clear; he wanted to play god.
So what of the monster? How did things go so awry after he was given life? Cowardice overtook Victor, it is as simple as that. The idea that he managed to create life all on his own scared him in a way he couldn't understand. He was so very excited just moments previous to the forming of new life. Not only was he scared of the monster, he also resented him. He resented him quite a great deal. "How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavoured to form? His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! -Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of his muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost the same colour as the dun white sockets in which they were set, his shriveled complexion and straight black lips [the face only a mother could love, though I suppose that doesn't apply here]. The different accidents of life are not so changeable as the feelings of human nature. I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body. For this I had deprived myself of rest and health. I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart."
Who is to blame for the poor results? Certainly not this monster, he was happy to be spread out in parts across all sorts of cemeteries. Once the monster was finished Victor was scared and resentful, so he abandoned him. So the monster goes off into the world to find his creator. And has all sorts of wacky adventures. Common misconception: the monster was not a brainless drone who wandered about moaning with his arms stretched out. He was a well-read and thoughtful "human" being. He was quite intelligent actually. But I digress. Victor wanted to play God and was very unsatisfied with the results, and if you follow the bible things seem to repeat themselves. He abandoned the monster, and God kicked the first two humans he created out of paradise. Though, God doesn't exactly abandon them in the way Victor does his monster. He hides from the monster, he runs from him. He is only a monster in the mind of Victor. Though his fears actualize themselves eventually, as they rightfully should.
So, what is the answer to my previously stated question in the title? NO. No, he was not a chauvinist, nor was Shelley trying to make some comment on society. She was just writing a scary story. And the message, if any; was that man could abuse science and technology to create something monstrous, i.e Jurassic Park, Splice, The Fly or The Food of the Gods by H.G. Wells. Maybe, we need to stop reading so much into something so simple and perfect for what it is. I think it is time for me to re-read this delightful story.

On a lighter note, I'm going to pimp out some blogs again, as I tend to. Joshua Berardi, Joshua Beachy, and introducing Sean Cairns. Read them and be amused.

Life updates: Still married and it's going well. Hit the 6 month mark a few weeks ago. It was celebrated with asian food, the traditional celebration for such a milestone. School is going...well. Drawing more naked men than I would ever desire to but next semester looks to be promising. I switched my major to art therapy, not sure if I had blogged about that change yet. Oh well. Next fall I should be moving to Portland, OR to attend Marylhurst University. Exciting!